New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-06
TURNING HIS OWN ARG UMENTS AGAINST
HIM

him.
Pettifogging Governors ought to have good
memories. 1t is evident that Governor HiiFs
memory is not good. In dealing with the
Vedder bill he evidently forgot that uhe
features of the measure upon which ostenslbly
no based his veto were contained In Dill
to which he affixed his signature only last year
Or will he pretend to say that the principles
which he regarded as all right in 1880 no
suddenly discovered to be all wrong in 1851
as soon as the Vedder bill reached him !
This law of last year, which demonstrates
the dishonesty Of the Governors action on
the Vedder BILL provides for the appointment
Of additional notaries public. 1t contains these
provisions
And hereafter at the time OF subscribing or
fling the oath Of Office the county clerk OF eacp
county shall collect rom each person appointed not
public tho fees hereinafter specified, and the county
clerk shall not administer file said oath unless said
fees shall have paid from each notary public
residing I'm any city having population OF moro thah
fifty thousand and less than tbrce hundred thons ana
Inhabitants, the sum OF five dollars; from each notary
public residing In any county which has within lts
boundaries a city having population OF moro thah
three hundred thousand, the sum OF ten doars from
each notary public other than As above specified, the
sum OF two and ono half dollars. The
county clerk OF every county shall on or before tho
first day Of in each year pay over to the State
Treasurer, except as provided herein by Section d
all fees collected under and by virtue OF this act.
Here it will be seen is a measure which
provides
l. For a graded and not uniform tax
| 2. For tax based upon population and not
| upon the amount Of business done.
int tho Sfatn 'TFn1G
ury rather than into the treasures of tho
localities where the licenses are granted
Now compare this bill, upon which appears
the indorsement Approved, David b. Hill,
with the reasons which David B. Hill assigns
for vetoing the Vedder bill
As revenue measure tho bill is Objectionable
First-The tax Is not uniform throughout the State
The bin, among other things, imposes tax OF siO'
upon places having frstclass licenses in the cities
OF New-York and Brooklyn, while in the other cities
of the State the tax varies from 900 TO $50 upon
the very same kind Of places. The tax is based &C
cordng to resident population rather than upon Tho
amount OF business done. There Is no prctcn OF
equality In its imposition.
second-Tho bill provides that the taxes raised
shall 90 into the State Treasury rather than into The
treasury Of the localities where the licenses are
granted. These license taxes should properly be ap
| Piled for the reduction OF local taxation No good
reason can he urged why one locality granting mum
Der OF licenses should DO compelled to share with an
other locality with the State at large any portion
of the public imposed account Of tine granting
OF such licenses Each locality should have the full
| and entire benefit OF its own local taxation.
Comment is unnecessary. Hill unmasks
Hill His approval of the notary bill of a
year ago must convince all fair-mndcd men
Of intelligence that the reasons which he puI
| forth for vetoing the Vcdder bill were not his
real reasons. The vc'o was inspired solely by
his devotion to the rum power. But of course
| Mr.. Hill was not frank enough to say So